Soccerdad1995 wrote:I for one would love to see 30.06 signage language stricken from Texas statutes. I continue to believe that we should just rely on general trespass laws for this. If a business owner does not want me on their property and tells me to leave, then I should leave. But it is none of their business what I have beneath my clothing.
I am glad of the wording of the 30.06 law and its application instead of the general trespass law applying. If we did not have 30.06 (and 30.07), then an owner could ban guns with just a little sticker that says no guns, your traditional pistol with a red slash sticker would do. OK, the sticker might need to be posted in a more conspicuous manner than most did, but it would be legal and enforceable. This would not be nearly as good for LTCs.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this. IANAL, but I do not think that such a sign would be legal or enforceable. I know that there was a random AG opinion that tried to twist the law on this a long time ago. That was an AG disguising their personal agenda as law. To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever been prosecuted for trespassing at a privately owned business simply because they walked past a sign that "banned" something they were carrying. A cop walking past a "no cops" sign while wearing his uniform is not breaking the law unless he refuses to leave after being told to do so by the property owner. Same goes for "no fat chicks", "no guns", "no Aggies", "no Yankees", or whatever. Any lawyers on the board, please feel free to educate me with the relevant code sections on trespassing.
Regardless, if this is a real risk, then perhaps we should also clarify the trespass laws to explicitly state that trespass at a business open to the public only occurs when someone is told to leave and they refuse to do so, or when they are told to never come back and they show up at a later date. We can keep the part about marking fence posts and the like for private property that is not open to the public.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
mojo84 wrote:
I also do not believe this is comparable to race and believe it is a shame that race has to be brought up almost every time we have such a discussion.
LOL! I agree. Green underwear and body odor is a much better analogy that equal protection.
mojo84 wrote:
I also do not believe this is comparable to race and believe it is a shame that race has to be brought up almost every time we have such a discussion.
LOL! I agree. Green underwear and body odor is a much better analogy that equal protection.
Green underwear and body odor can both be changed. A person's race can't. Neither body odor nor underwear color are a recognized as protected class. Sorry you can't understand that.
Again, it's what the law is that matters, not what you want it to be. I know it's hard for the entitled to understand.
By the way, if you took the time to actually read the thread, you would see the green underwear wasn't introduced into this conversation by me. I just tried to use the analogy to make it simple enough to be understood. I'm now .
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
Green underwear and body odor? LOL
You aren't the first one around here to make fallacious comparison between race and carrying a gun. LOL
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
Green underwear and body odor? LOL
You aren't the first one around here to make fallacious comparison between race and carrying a gun. LOL
Lol. You crack me up. Thanks a million.
Last edited by TXBO on Mon Jul 18, 2016 7:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
Green underwear and body odor? LOL
You aren't the first one around here to make fallacious comparison between race and carrying a gun. LOL
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
Green underwear and body odor? LOL
You aren't the first one around here to make fallacious comparison between race and carrying a gun. LOL
I support your right to prohibit green under wear and body odor from your private establishment.
mojo84 wrote:You are the one that keeps talking about unrelated issues such as pollution and such. Now you've introduced another off-topic issue such as "needs".
Bottom line, you do not have a right to enter my privately owned property unless you agree to meet with my terms of entry. I can set the terms as I wish with the exception of a few protected classes.
You are entitled to enter my property as long as you meet my terms. Therefore, it is a privilege and not a right to enter my business. Entitlements and privileges can be revoked by others, rights cannot.
Nothing says you have to enter my property. It's not my problem you may be inconvenienced.
Can we drop the grammar argument?
Once again. Here is my position -
You have a right to do what you want with your property, as long as you are not harming others or infringing on their rights. And just because you invite me to come on to your property does not mean that you get to control what I have under my clothing. If you find out that I have something under my clothing that makes you uneasy, or you want me to leave for any other reason, then ask me to leave.
You are right. Nothing says that I have to enter your property. In fact, you don't have to let anyone onto your property. Trespass laws cover that topic well. But if you open a store, and put out a general invitation for the public to visit your property, you should not get to set "conditions for entry" and then use the arrest powers of the state when someone violates one of your conditions and still enters your property.
You keep talking about grammar and then you post what you want the laws to be and not what they are. That right there is the crux of the fallacy in your argument.
You have no RIGHT (there's that important word again) to wear green underwear on my property if I don't want you to. However, you can get away with it as long as I don't find out. Once I find out, you will be sent on your way regardless how inconvenient it may be for you.
Let me ask you this. If you opened a nice little cafe and a person enters and he stinks to high heaven. He hasn't bathed in weeks. The stink it's emanating from under his clothes where his concealed carry gun is located. It's not going to hurt anyone but it is offensive. Do you as the property owner have a right to set the condition of entry that one must not stink?
The whole discussion is about how we think the law should be. This would be a MUCH shorter thread if we limited it to whether someone in Texas can restrict the RKBA of others on their property (spoiler alert - they can).
And yes, I believe that a property owner should be able to ask anyone to leave for any reason they want. So if the person with BO bothers you and you want them to leave, ask them to do so. If they refuse, call the cops and they should help you. Again, this is how I think the law should work. Property owners rights are much more limited by the actual law. I do not think that you should be able to post a sign saying "no one can enter here if their smell bothers me" and then have the cops arrest that person without you first asking them to leave. That is the crux of our disagreement. If someone's presence bothers you, then put on your big boy pants and ask them to leave. But you should not be able to have them arrested because there is something that would bother you about them if you knew about it only you don't actually know about it, so you can't figure out that they are bothering you.
glock27 wrote:Let me throw a wrench in these gears.
So what if you dont allow people of different colored skin into your establishment? If you ask them to leave and they dont can u call the cops?
The reason you ask them to leave has to be other than skin color if the establishment meets the definition of "public accommodation" in the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I have a sign saying no whiteys on my property, but being a joint owner, my wife gives me consent that overrides the sign. That's how I, a person of pallor, am allowed on my own property.
4/13/1996 Completed CHL Class, 4/16/1996 Fingerprints, Affidavits, and Application Mailed, 10/4/1996 Received CHL, renewed 1998, 2002, 2006, 2011, 2016...). "ATF... Uhhh...heh...heh....Alcohol, tobacco, and GUNS!! Cool!!!!"
ScottDLS wrote:I have a sign saying no whiteys on my property, but being a joint owner, my wife gives me consent that overrides the sign. That's how I, a person of pallor, am allowed on my own property.
Racial tensions and what is going on is one big joke, aren't they?
Not everything has to come down to race. Unless of course, we want to continue stoking the fire.
Last edited by mojo84 on Wed Jul 20, 2016 5:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Note: Me sharing a link and information published by others does not constitute my endorsement, agreement, disagreement, my opinion or publishing by me. If you do not like what is contained at a link I share, take it up with the author or publisher of the content.
.
